First Amendment

Washington Post Misses The Mark with Hit Piece

So much for the fourth wall, folks.  And maybe even the fifth wall, at this rate.

Yesterday marked another dark day for the First Amendment in America, as one privately-owned publisher attempted to subvert the free speech of another privately-owned publisher through intimidation and the court of public opinion.

Let this salient point sink in before we continue:  The confrontation that you are about to immerse yourself in was between two businesses bestowed the same rights as one another by the Constitution of these United States…it was not a struggle between an authority of any sort and some lawless vandals on the outskirts of the media.  This struggle is between two equals, at least in the eyes of the supreme law of the land.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Science is Settled

The story is as such:  The Washington Post yesterday published an article in which they attempted to paint myself, our website, and our outlook as hateful or bigoted.  The flimsy proof provided was accompanied by little to no context, making it a no-brainer to be labeled a “hit piece” by unnamed insider sources.  (See, democrats, we can play that game too).

The idea was to shame our advertisers into withdrawing their business arrangements with the ad-providers contracted to us.  The Post article put forth a few ugly, out of context quotes, the most prominent of which was written by an unpaid guest contributor, and was a headline in the form of a question, as if this writer was seeking the truth of the otherwise salacious claims.

In other words, in an article attempting to make us out to be shock-peddlers, the Washington Post itself engaged in omission-centric manufacturing of outrage for the sake of selling papers.

But, this is still all a digression from the most poignant of political points here:  The Washington Post is allowed to do that thanks to the First Amendment, and as infuriating as it is, that’s their right and there isn’t a damned thing we can do about it except use our own First Amendment rights to defend ourselves.

Therein lies the problem:

The First Amendment is subject to liberal rule in 2018, thanks to the “private” publishing rights held by Google, Twitter, Facebook and others.  

Nearly coinciding with the Washington Post piece, it was discovered that a number of Twitter accounts within the family had been permanently suspended.

At approximately 9 pm eastern on October 2, ten conservative twitter accounts owned by ten different entities were suspended by Twitter.  When the account owners contacted Twitter to get the details of what they supposedly did wrong and appeal the punishment,  no reason was provided. Instead,  the “bluebirds of punishment” sent them notices that they were permanently banned.

Eight of the accounts booted by twitter were connected to websites; two were personal accounts:

 Twitter Account: Owner

  1. @Army4OurRepub:
  2. @theEagleiRising:
  3. @flagandC:
  4. @RedrightRepub:
  5. @GreatAmRepub:
  6. @constitutionNat:
  7. @luvGodnCountry: Personal Account For Tanya Grimsley
  8. @bb4SP:
  9. @deplorableNews :
  10. @ BarracudaMama: Personal Account For Alicia Luke

The freedom to defend themselves on a level playing field of publication has now been taken from these accounts, including the official Twitter account of this very website.  What good is the freedom of speech if you don’t possess a voice?

It’s like owning a pool, but having a nosy neighbor call the police on you for using it and making noise:  You still have a pool, good for you, but it’s functionally obsolete.

That’s the First Amendment for conservatives in America today:  Nice to look at, but virtually impossible to use without getting harassed.





Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.